Tamron 150-600, help needed

[Ted Evans]

View attachment 108767

The test shots were made under VERY challenging situations and settings, as far as bringing in a killer-sharp shot: zoom lens, at the maximum zoom, at too small an aperture to NOT be impacted by diffraction (every singe frame shot at f/11 will suffer from diffraction), and the 1/30 second speed is going to be VERY demanding of all conditions...not criticizing, just pointing out that this is the lens at its extremes, at a marginal speed, in the real-world. On the plus side, LOW color fringing, and pretty good image quality across the entire frame on a high-MP sensor! THis is four and a half to five stops below the minimum safe speed for a 600mm lens--but then again, it looks like a dull, overcast day, with flat lighting; flat lighting ALSO contributes to lower contrast.

The last image cleans up pretty well with some unsharp masking applied and a micro-tweak of the curves...and it looks to me like the focusing is on-target.

Thanks a million Derrel and just as I thought, lack of proper technique. I will make some adjustments on AF fine tune and keeping the information that you provided in mind, will make some more tests....and practice. Thanks again, much appreciated.

 

[wfooshee]

I have to tell you, getting anything useful at 1/30 at 600mm is an accomplishment! That's not a setting to use for judging glass sharpness....

Don't be afraid of ISO on that 800e! I've not used one but a local friend had an 800, and now an 810, and the 5-digit-ISO shots he posts are miles beyond anything I could hope for at even ISO 800 on my D7000.

Beyond that, I'll just echo what everyone else has said, that reviews of that lens are pretty consistent in saying that its sharpness falls off quickly (I resisted the urge to say "sharply" ) when over 500mm zoom.

 

[Braineack]

I'm completely satisfied with it at 600mm I have plenty of sharp examples:

view the original size of these:


Cat Bird Cleaning by The Braineack, on Flickr


Belle Profile by The Braineack, on Flickr


Morning Dove by The Braineack, on Flickr


it's not the absolute greatest, but it's still not bad--especially for the price.

 

[Ted Evans]

I'm completely satisfied with it at 600mm I have plenty of sharp examples:

view the original size of these:


Cat Bird Cleaning by The Braineack, on Flickr


Belle Profile by The Braineack, on Flickr


Morning Dove by The Braineack, on Flickr


it's not the absolute greatest, but it's still not bad--especially for the price.

They look great to me. I have a number of images taken at 40' or less that I am completely satisified with such as the one below but I have none that were taken over 75' that were acceptable. My thinking is it is ignorance on my part.

This was handheld with a D7100 @600mm, f9, 1/1000 ISO 2000 and is not perfect but I can live with it. However, I did not get the lens to be limited to 50' or less.

 

[Ted Evans]

Testing with the AF fine tune feature with the Tamron 150-600 is somewhat discouraging. Using a Gitzo tripod with Arca-Swiss ball head, mirror up, remote shutter release and using the minimum aperture, 5-6.3, I found these settings resulted in the sharpest images for me.


600 = +8

500 = +2

400 = +4

300 = +4

200 = -2

150 = -4


From -4 to +8 seems to me to be a substantial spread. The best results at 600mm, was using manual focus in live mode but that does not seem feasible for what this lens is mainly used for. This was by no means exhaustive but it gives me a starting point for further testing.

 

[Braineack]

I was going to do some tests over the weekend, but the weather was so crummy.

Shot the moon last night at 600mm, I'll have to see how those turned out.

 

[JTPhotography]

I have this lens as well, and no issues at all. As others have said, your problem is focus, not the sharpness of the lens. The focus can be slow and will miss occasionally. Play with manual focus and fine tune, see what happens. I use one focus point and toggle it around to where I need it to get sharp images. I don't trust the camera most of the time, unless I am shooting a moving subject, then I expect more missed shots.

 

[Ted Evans]

I have this lens as well, and no issues at all. As others have said, your problem is focus, not the sharpness of the lens. The focus can be slow and will miss occasionally. Play with manual focus and fine tune, see what happens. I use one focus point and toggle it around to where I need it to get sharp images. I don't trust the camera most of the time, unless I am shooting a moving subject, then I expect more missed shots.

Thanks JT, I have been doing some testing with the lens and found out that I had performed AF fine tuning on the D7100 but had not on the D800e. There is a substantial spread within the different focal links of the lens and I agree with you that manual focus is more dependable when it is an option. It was disturbing to me that most of my short range images were good and none of the longer ranges ones were. I also use the single focus point perhaps 90% of the time.

 

[Braineack]

This is where the sigma is a better buy.

using tapatalk.

 

[JacaRanda]

Testing with the AF fine tune feature with the Tamron 150-600 is somewhat discouraging. Using a Gitzo tripod with Arca-Swiss ball head, mirror up, remote shutter release and using the minimum aperture, 5-6.3, I found these settings resulted in the sharpest images for me.


600 = +8

500 = +2

400 = +4

300 = +4

200 = -2

150 = -4


From -4 to +8 seems to me to be a substantial spread. The best results at 600mm, was using manual focus in live mode but that does not seem feasible for what this lens is mainly used for. This was by no means exhaustive but it gives me a starting point for further testing.

I can't remember which instructions I used to micro adjust, but I'm pretty sure it did not recommend using all 6 focal lengths. Now I'm curious. I may have done 150 & 600 and split the difference.

 

[Ted Evans]

Testing with the AF fine tune feature with the Tamron 150-600 is somewhat discouraging. Using a Gitzo tripod with Arca-Swiss ball head, mirror up, remote shutter release and using the minimum aperture, 5-6.3, I found these settings resulted in the sharpest images for me.


600 = +8

500 = +2

400 = +4

300 = +4

200 = -2

150 = -4


From -4 to +8 seems to me to be a substantial spread. The best results at 600mm, was using manual focus in live mode but that does not seem feasible for what this lens is mainly used for. This was by no means exhaustive but it gives me a starting point for further testing.

I can't remember which instructions I used to micro adjust, but I'm pretty sure it did not recommend using all 6 focal lengths. Now I'm curious. I may have done 150 & 600 and split the difference.

I went by the book when I fine tuned the lens with the AF tune graph to my D7100 and I believe it was 600 @ 6.3 @ about 20'. The above readings are from an object 90-100' using the D800e which is a more practical distance for me and I wanted to see how each focal length did at that range. I have set on a +4 at least until I can do more testing. I also want to test it using 7.1 to 8 which I normally try to shoot at, conditions permitting.

 

[wezza13]

Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.

Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.

Did you ever sort the problem?

 

[PaulWog]

Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.

Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.

Did you ever sort the problem?

I would recommend making your own thread, with examples (photos) uploaded.

Have you tried taking test shots and using live view focus to see if there's any focus inaccuracies?

 

[Ted Evans]

Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.

Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.

Did you ever sort the problem?

Most of my issues seemed to be caused by atmospheric conditions with some being just limitations of a $1k 600 mm lens. The fine tuning helped but did not solve the IQ problem completely.

I found an old D model 400 f/2.8 that I use with a TC-14e and TC-17e with much superior IQ. Before getting the 400, I got the Nikon 200-500 but have some of the same issues with it as with the Tamron. Before the 400 or the 200-500, I got a used 300 f/4 with a TC-14e II for $1k that has great IQ but of course it is only 420 mm. If I had it to do over and was limited to under a $1500 budget, I would go the 300 f/4 used with a TC of course, none of this helps you with the Tamron, sorry.

 

[wezza13]

Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.

Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.

Did you ever sort the problem?

Most of my issues seemed to be caused by atmospheric conditions with some being just limitations of a $1k 600 mm lens. The fine tuning helped but did not solve the IQ problem completely.

I found an old D model 400 f/2.8 that I use with a TC-14e and TC-17e with much superior IQ. Before getting the 400, I got the Nikon 200-500 but have some of the same issues with it as with the Tamron. Before the 400 or the 200-500, I got a used 300 f/4 with a TC-14e II for $1k that has great IQ but of course it is only 420 mm. If I had it to do over and was limited to under a $1500 budget, I would go the 300 f/4 used with a TC of course, none of this helps you with the Tamron, sorry.

Thanks for the reply, Ted.

I do actually have the 300mm f/4 with the 1.4x tc. It's a very good combo but, as you say, you're lacking in reach. I also have the 2x tc but. it's pretty unusable with the 300mm as the iq is shockingly bad. I recently hired a 500mm f/4 and the AF on that beast really puts the 300mm f/4 to shame!

The 400 f/2.8 w/tc sounds like a good idea. It may be a cheaper option than the 500mm f/4 I was planning on saving for.